The video perpetuates the false notion that evolution equates with
atheism.First off, the
title itself sets the tone of the entire video by generating the
mindset that the entire purpose of the development of evolutionary
theory is to oppose God.Then the video begins with a quote from atheist Richard
Dawkins.Why not
instead quote Christians who studied evolution, such as Asa Gray,
Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, Denis O. Lamoureux, or many others?Yes, Christian evolutionists exist.

Most of the video consists of interviews with a few college faculty
and a lot of college students.I got the overall impression that this was highly
piece-mealed, consisting only of responses and dialogue that
promoted the video’s main thesis.Only scientists and students that professed to be atheists
were interviewed in the video, and lots of loaded questions were
asked.I would love to
see the unedited interview footage.

The interviewees are asked to provide compelling evidence for
Darwinian evolution.
However, the view of “Darwinian Evolution” presented by Ray Comfort
does not coincide well with actual evolutionary theory, as evident
in his line of questioning.According to Comfort, a “kind” is not a species (but instead
consists of entire species groups such as the feline family or the
canine family), adaptation is not Darwinian evolution, and the
evolution of a new species is not Darwinian evolution.Ironically, according to Comfort’s criteria, even Darwin’s
On the Origin of Species by
means of Natural Selection would not have been a book on
Darwinian evolution!
Throughout much of the video, the interviewer (Comfort) asks the
interviewees to provide “observable evidence of Darwinian evolution,
a change of kinds.”
When the biologists attempted to explain what Darwinian evolution
actually consists of, they were quickly cut off.By redefining “Darwinian Evolution” Ray Comfort confuses the
student interviewees and the audience.

To clarify further, Ray Comfort’s treatment of “kinds” follows the
Baraminology school of thought, which is the concept that “kinds”
mentioned in Genesis do not refer to species, but entire groups of
species (all the members of the canine family would be a single
“created kind”, for example).Under Baraminology, significant evolution can occur within
the confines of a “created kind”, with each “kind” being a distinct
created entity lacking an evolutionary relationship to other such
kinds. However, instead of
referring to species origins within a created kind as evolution,
such diversification is often re-packaged and re-labeled under other
names, such as “horizontal variation within created kinds.”Baraminology has significant shortcomings, both
scientifically and biblically, and not all creationists ascribe to
it, but that’s another subject.

Although Comfort never mentioned the buzzwords of Baraminology in
the video, his use of the baraminological school of thought becomes
obvious when he asked for examples of evolution involving “a change
in kinds”.When the
finches of the Galapagos Islands were offered in response, he
countered “but they’re still birds…they’re still finches… no change
of kinds”, claiming that this is not an example of Darwinian
evolution.In
actuality, the diversification of these thirteen-or-so species of
finches from a single species
is Darwinian evolution (Darwin himself used this as an example).They are not “one kind” of finch, but thirteen kinds of
finches.(Incidentally,
the Genesis phrase “according to their kinds” in no way means that
“kinds” must remain fixed over time.But again, that’s another subject.)

Another major problem with the video is its central argument: that
evolution is merely an imaginary construct accepted by faith in
order to oppose God and to relinquish oneself of moral
accountability, and that evolutionary theory lacks any scientific
support whatsoever.
Although those who wish to avoid God and moral accountability will
do so by using whatever excuses that seem convenient, evolutionary
theory itself is indeed based on scientific evidence, and the
evangelical Christian community needs to come to grips with this.

Finally, the subtitle “shaking the foundations of faith” is
tragically accurate.
According to view presented in this video, to believe in any kind of
Darwinian evolution is to reject the God of the Bible.As long as people believe this is true, people
will reject the God of
the Bible once they are exposed to the evidences supporting
evolutionary theory.
Thus, the video actually can “shake the foundations of faith” by
inadvertently causing people to stray from the Gospel when they
encounter perceived “contradictions” with science.

The only good parts of the video were the segments explaining how
we’ve broken God’s law (24:25 – 27:00) and therefore need Christ
Jesus to save us from our sins (28:50 – 33:00).If the rest of the video were spliced out, I would recommend
this video to everyone.
As is, unfortunately, I cannot recommend it to anyone.

Below is a list of the questions used in the interviews.For the sake of this review, I will pretend that I am one of
the persons being interviewed and provide my own personal responses:

“Are you an atheist? “
No.

“Do you believe in evolution?”
Yes.It’s just a part
of nature.

“Is evolution a belief?”
It is a conclusion based on scientific evidence.It is a belief in the sense that all scientific conclusions
are beliefs.

“Can you give me some
observable evidence that evolution is true, something I don’t have
to receive by faith? “Observable evidences supporting evolutionary theory include
observations of patterns of biogeography, comparative anatomy,
comparative embryology, fossils, and comparative molecular biology.It is not “received by faith”.

“Can you think of any
observable evidence of Darwinian evolution, a change of kinds?Anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the
scientific method, for Darwinian Evolution and change of kinds?”This concept of “kinds” is inconsistent with the scientific
concept of species.It
is also inconsistent with the biblical account of “kinds” (Genesis
1:11-12, 6:19).Also,
one doesn’t need to be around for 100-million years to observe the
results of 100-million years of evolution, because the evidences
left behind still exists for us to study (through observable
patterns in the categories listed above in the previous question).If evolutionary biologists cannot scientifically reconstruct
the past from evidences left behind in the present, then neither can
forensic scientists reconstruct the events of past criminal events.The observation and testing from available evidences to
reconstruct past history is indeed use of the scientific method.

“Do you believe in
intelligent design?” Yes, but not as an alternative to evolution
as many have proposed.
I believe that nature is designed, and that includes the design of
evolution.

“Can you make a rose out of
nothing?” Who would want to make a rose out of nothing when it
would be far more feasible just to buy one?

“Can you give me a definition
of vestigials, and how does that back up evolution?”Vestigial structures are those that are reduced in size and
in function.They do
not have to be completely functionless to be considered vestigial,
although some can be (such as vestigial eye sockets in blind cave
fish).The examples of
the usefulness of the appendix or the coccyx in the video actually
support, not refute, evolution, because there are lots of examples
where adaptation can co-opt existing structures for new uses.

“Can you think of any famous
atheists?” Yes, but what’s that got to do with anything?

“Do you believe in moral
absolutes?” Yes.

“If your neighbor and your
pet dog were drowning, and you could only save one, which would you
save?”The
neighbor. (By the way, Ray Comfort’s use of the phrase “survival of
the fittest” during this part of the video is counterintuitive,
because survival of the fittest is about preserving populations, and
saving the dog instead of the neighbor would not have accomplished
this.)

“Are you a good person?Are you going to make it to Heaven?”In the absolute sense, I am not a good person.I am not going to make it to Heaven on my own.This is why Jesus came to become the savior of the world.

“Do you think we’re related
to pigs?Do you think
we have a common ancestor?”Our biological bodies have a common ancestor.Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 refers to all our bodies as coming from
dust even though our bodies came into the world biologically.“Dust”, therefore, is a biblical metaphor for both natural
origins and the mortality of natural things.

“Do you think you are a
primate?”Primates
belong to the taxonomic Order Primates, which is characterized by a
number of anatomical features that include forward-facing eyes,
opposable thumbs, and flexible shoulder joints.Humans share these features in common, and therefore humans
are primates.
Despite that, humans are exceptional in a number of regards.

“Are you a cousin of bananas?”See answer in the “pigs” question above.

What else did the faculty interviewees say that didn’t make it to
the video?

Does Ray Comfort believe that Charles Darwin was a Darwinian?

Since the word species is
Latin for “kind”, on what basis does Ray Comfort believe that a
single “kind” includes all the species of a particular family, when
this idea of “kind” is not based on science nor is it based on
biblical scripture?

On what basis does Ray Comfort say that speciation (the evolution of
a new species) within the cat family, dog family, stickleback
fishes, or Galapagos finches is not Darwinian evolution?

On what basis does Ray Comfort conclude that adaptation is not
evolution?

Why did the video attempt to redefine “Darwinian Evolution”, “kind”,
and “vestigial” in order to make its points?

In conclusion, although the primary goal is to share the Gospel
message, this video will likely do more harm than good.It seemed that Ray Comfort was effective in sharing the
Gospel message with the student interviewees.However, because Comfort also handcuffed this message to the
opposition of a bona fide scientific theory, I am concerned that the
recipients of this message, as well as the watchers of this video,
are going to hear about the evidences of evolution again, and will
likely dismiss Comfort’s evangelical efforts as a result of this
inappropriate association.

If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision
for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to
what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the
inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while
still believing in an old earth. Click here for more.

Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we
have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in
this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If
you are a young-earth creationism believer,
click here.

Did you know that you can be a Christian,
and believe that the earth is billions of years old? You can even
believe in evolution and be a Christian. There is no conflict
between science and the Bible...all one needs is a proper
understanding how to merge science and the Bible. To learn more
about old earth creationism, seeOld Earth Belief,
or check out the article Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?

Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.